OBAMA/TRUMPCARE MEGATHREAD

[Balta1701]

Again, we're all paying the bill.

Because if we keep them uninsured, they'll be smart enough not to get in fender-benders. Or at least we can pretend that they never have to leave the house, because otherwise, we'd be paying the much larger bill.

 

After all, a $20,000 bill for a fender-bender is just what this hypothetical person needs to teach him or her the lesson that he or she shouldn't be poor.

[Jenksismyhero]

Because if we keep them uninsured, they'll be smart enough not to get in fender-benders. Or at least we can pretend that they never have to leave the house, because otherwise, we'd be paying the much larger bill.

 

After all, a $20,000 bill for a fender-bender is just what this hypothetical person needs to teach him or her the lesson that he or she shouldn't be poor.

 

Now you're getting it.

[Jake]

Voter registration isn't easy NOW? f*** it all, why not just have them be able to vote when they go to the doctor as well? And screw you and your supposed racism in every damn thing that happens. Republican didn't bipartisan support the program because they think it is a BAD PROGRAM. Not because Obama is black, or a Democrat or that they want to put registration in it. However much you think he 'gave in', the bill still sucks. If all his 'capitulation' still caused moderates and such to lose, maybe it is because the bill still sucks.

 

I'm happy for you to disagree with my thoughts on the law, but I didn't introduce racism into my argument because I don't think it had anything to do with the healthcare law. You wouldn't like it if I cried racism to distract (so much so that you thought you saw it when it wasn't there) so I'd like if I don't get accused of talking about racism when that had nothing to do with what I was talking about.

 

As far as voting goes, I still don't see the objection. Why should it be hard? It's one thing to think there should be qualifications for voting (I don't agree with it, but at least that is a position to have) and another to think that pretty much any citizen should be able to vote, but it must not be too simple to do so. In this case, worries about fraud don't make sense either since it will be a government institution providing the service and will use the same verification processes as any other place that offers that service.

 

If you want what many liberals think Obama did wrong on this bill, beyond the aforementioned capitulation, I would tell you that he did a very poor job of selling it. He didn't spend time or resources trying to correct misconceptions and fears about the law, presumably out of some half-brained strategy to avoid doing so. Critics on the left are still upset that he isn't doing more to educate people on what the law is and encouraging the enrollment that is central to its success. The inattentive public heard very few things about Obamacare and that was pretty much "death panels" and other overt lies about what the law does. In political communication circles, we think the conservatives were brilliant in the way they were able to control public discourse about that law. As a citizen, it is very upsetting.

 

Actually, there are a few issues that have come up with implementation that we'd really like to tweak by passing small laws through Congress, but the party with the majority in the House is refusing to do anything which could improve the bill on the grounds that they want as many people to hate it as possible. For example, the way the bill was written it wound up excluding clergy members from receiving subsidies to purchase insurance through their churches. A simple, couple-line legislative fix would fix that. However, the Republicans will not allow any such fix to come up for a vote, demanding that clergy must suffer in order to demonstrate that the bill is a bad bill.

 

As a consequence, several hundred thousand clergy members could be forced to make purchases on the exchanges and drop their current coverage as a consequence.

 

We'd be happy to fix this and could do so without a problem if the bill were allowed to come up for a vote. One party will not allow any such things to happen.

 

Many Democrats also want to tweak the employer mandate, one of the most unpopular features of the law among conservatives, but haven't been given the opportunity to do so. Most Democrats recognize the issue in that hard employee cutoff in that the marginal cost of employee #50 will have unintended consequences. There hasn't been any serious consideration of remedying this beyond scrapping the whole law.

[EvilMonkey]

If you want what many liberals think Obama did wrong on this bill, beyond the aforementioned capitulation, I would tell you that he did a very poor job of selling it. He didn't spend time or resources trying to correct misconceptions and fears about the law, presumably out of some half-brained strategy to avoid doing so. Critics on the left are still upset that he isn't doing more to educate people on what the law is and encouraging the enrollment that is central to its success. The inattentive public heard very few things about Obamacare and that was pretty much "death panels" and other overt lies about what the law does. In political communication circles, we think the conservatives were brilliant in the way they were able to control public discourse about that law. As a citizen, it is very upsetting.

So he did a poor job of selling it? Didn't 'get the message out'? That is always the fallback when liberal ideas get rejected. The message DID get out, and it was rejected.

[Soxbadger]

"If people would just do what I say we wouldn't be in this mess! Guh. Come on guys, let's compromise!"

 

If you are against universal healthcare that is fine, I just want people to own that position. Not dance around it.

 

So he did a poor job of selling it? Didn't 'get the message out'? That is always the fallback when liberal ideas get rejected. The message DID get out, and it was rejected.

 

Interesting definition of rejected.

[Texsox]

So he did a poor job of selling it? Didn't 'get the message out'? That is always the fallback when liberal ideas get rejected. The message DID get out, and it was rejected.

 

As a political strategy Republicans could not allow for a major advancement in our society to be credited to the other party. The GOP has done a remarkable job of getting their message out. It may have been a fight for their survival. The idea hasn't been rejected, all the noise from the conservative press and "grass roots" misinformation campaigns has drowned it out. The GOP side, with all the money is far more effective at amplifying their message. And the party faithful know to ditto it to death ;-)

[Texsox]

Because if we keep them uninsured, they'll be smart enough not to get in fender-benders. Or at least we can pretend that they never have to leave the house, because otherwise, we'd be paying the much larger bill.

 

After all, a $20,000 bill for a fender-bender is just what this hypothetical person needs to teach him or her the lesson that he or she shouldn't be poor.

 

The lesson here is people earning less than $35,000 and working jobs without health insurance should not own cars or need health care.

[Jenksismyhero]

If you are against universal healthcare that is fine, I just want people to own that position. Not dance around it.

 

 

 

Interesting definition of rejected.

 

Like every liberal versus conservative argument over policy, the party that's trying to reign in total socialism/government control/the nanny state ends up looking like bad guys because they don't promise the world. "Oh Mr. Republican, you don't want to provide health care to people? You're ok with people dying in the streets? Well, I'm not cruel like that! I think people should live!" Republicans can't easily articulate a position that society should assist people but not provide for them totally with everything. Or that society should assist people but not at the cost of bankrupting the country. The message gets spun way too easily the other way.

 

I'm all for the government being a last resort if you're broke and dying and can't afford medical payments. I'm all about the government making sure that insurance companies aren't making it impossible to obtain health insurance. I'm against the government taking over the medical industry altogether and providing everyone with the same level of care. I want choice. I want convenience. If that means I have to pay out of my pocket a little more, so be it. But it should be my choice to do so, not the government taking it out of my paycheck.

 

I just wish this country had a "i'm responsible for myself and my family" view instead of "society owes me everything!" We're a wonderfully lucky society that is prosperous enough to make sure that no one dies in the street, everyone becomes educated, everyone has shelter, etc. I just wish we would view government assistance as a last resort as opposed to the first demand. My own family does this s*** and it drives me crazy. I have a cousin who has 2 kids. She quit her job to raise her family, which means she ended up on welfare. And she and her husband just decided to have another kid! f*** feeding my family, the government will pay! That's the bulls*** mentality this country has and it's because of liberals who have sold the public that society should provide you with everything you don't have. Spend all your money on worthless things. Have kids you can't afford. Uncle Sam has your back.

 

(and yes, this is an over generalization, but i've seen enough of this mentality in just about every facet of my life so I know it exists.)

[bmags]

judging by how many posters in this thread keep forgetting the subsidies part of it, yes, he did a poor job of selling it. Plus negativity bias

[DukeNukeEm]

"The employer mandate is awful"

We can tweak that out. Damn Republicans won't let us.

 

"What about the clergy?"

A quick fix. Damn Republicans won't let us.

 

"Doesn't this just indenture people to their employer?"

Yea, but it like totally doesn't mean to. The intent was not to, but it does. That makes sense on my planet

 

"Isn't it wrong for the government to two private parties into a business transaction?"

/crickets

 

The excuses keep mounting for this awful law, occasionally bouyed by some appeal to empathize with the poor but mostly just complaining about Democrats not getting everything they wanted. At some point, and were well past it in regards to this wretched law, you just have to stop claiming you can fix things within the framework of a broken idea and just admit that the idea itself is bad enough to where it needs to be abandoned.

 

[Jake]

So he did a poor job of selling it? Didn't 'get the message out'? That is always the fallback when liberal ideas get rejected. The message DID get out, and it was rejected.

 

The way I see it is this: Americans have a very low opinion of Obamacare. Roughly 52% oppose while 39% are in favor of it.

 

Meanwhile, 57% of Americans say they do not have enough information about the law to know if it will impact them - 67% of uninsured Americans don't know what the law does for them (this was in March this year, 3 years after the law passed).

 

Now, opinion on many aspects of the law are totally different. 52% say they think Medicaid should be expanded to cover more low-income people (41% oppose this idea).

 

88% support the idea of giving tax credits to small businesses for buying healthcare for their employees.

81% support closing the "donut hole" in Medicare

80% support healthcare exchanges

76% support raising the maximum age of dependents on family insurance plans

76% support subsidies for individuals buying insurance

60% support increasing Medicare payroll tax on upper incomes

 

The only aspect that was polled that drew less than majority support was the individual mandate, which was questionably described as a penalty by the pollsters and thus drawing criticism. Either way, this had 40% support and is essential for the law and all the other provisions to work correctly.

 

Interestingly, despite the high unfavorability of the law in general, only 29% believed that their family would be worse off because of the law.

 

As far as more misinformation, 59% of people say they believe that nationwide health expenditures are "going up faster than usual." It has actually been growing much slower than usual for several years - only 4% of Americans thought this was the case. Only 40% believed that more uninsured people would have insurance, lol.

 

Anyway, the difference between how people feel about each aspect of the law and how they feel about the law on the whole tells me that the law was not well-marketed. People believing in clear un-truths like the supposed rapid inflation of healthcare costs and the idea that this law will not even cover uninsured people tells me that people have been hearing the wrong sources of information. The fact that a huge majority claim they need more information to know whether it will impact their lives in any way, including and especially uninsured people, tells me that the administration needed to have worked harder to disseminate information about the law.

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ot..._plan-1130.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/20/h..._n_2915826.html

http://kff.org/health-reform/poll-finding/...-tracking-poll/

[bmags]

"Doesn't this just indenture people to their employer?"

Yea, but it like totally doesn't mean to. The intent was not to, but it does. That makes sense on my planet

 

LOL as opposed to WHAT BASELINE? Now?

 

This will make the individual market more affordable for the majority of uninsured people. As it continues to grow it will become even more affordable. This just nonsense.

[southsider2k5]

The way I see it is this: Americans have a very low opinion of Obamacare. Roughly 52% oppose while 39% are in favor of it.

 

Meanwhile, 57% of Americans say they do not have enough information about the law to know if it will impact them - 67% of uninsured Americans don't know what the law does for them (this was in March this year, 3 years after the law passed).

 

Now, opinion on many aspects of the law are totally different. 52% say they think Medicaid should be expanded to cover more low-income people (41% oppose this idea).

88% support the idea of giving tax credits to small businesses for buying healthcare for their employees.

81% support closing the "donut hole" in Medicare

80% support healthcare exchanges

76% support raising the maximum age of dependents on family insurance plans

76% support subsidies for individuals buying insurance

60% support increasing Medicare payroll tax on upper incomes

 

The only aspect that was polled that drew less than majority support was the individual mandate, which was questionably described as a penalty by the pollsters and thus drawing criticism. Either way, this had 40% support and is essential for the law and all the other provisions to work correctly.

 

Interestingly, despite the high unfavorability of the law in general, only 29% believed that their family would be worse off because of the law.

 

As far as more misinformation, 59% of people say they believe that nationwide health expenditures are "going up faster than usual." It has actually been growing much slower than usual for several years - only 4% of Americans thought this was the case. Only 40% believed that more uninsured people would have insurance, lol.

 

Anyway, the difference between how people feel about each aspect of the law and how they feel about the law on the whole tells me that the law was not well-marketed. People believing in clear un-truths like the supposed rapid inflation of healthcare costs and the idea that this law will not even cover uninsured people tells me that people have been hearing the wrong sources of information. The fact that a huge majority claim they need more information to know whether it will impact their lives in any way, including and especially uninsured people, tells me that the administration needed to have worked harder to disseminate information about the law.

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ot..._plan-1130.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/20/h..._n_2915826.html

http://kff.org/health-reform/poll-finding/...-tracking-poll/

 

Now how much do those percentages change if you start telling people they have to pay more to get it done?

[Iwritecode]

I may have asked this question before but is everyone eligible for the Obamacare or just people that aren't offered insurance through their employer?

 

Both my wife's and my job offer insurance but we really don't like it.

[bmags]

I may have asked this question before but is everyone eligible for the Obamacare or just people that aren't offered insurance through their employer?

 

Both my wife's and my job offer insurance but we really don't like it.

 

The state exchanges are open to you. There are some great resources where you can calculate how much a silver plan would be for you and your wife. Whether your current plan will be a better deal depends on your income level.

[Jenksismyhero]

The state exchanges are open to you. There are some great resources where you can calculate how much a silver plan would be for you and your wife. Whether your current plan will be a better deal depends on your income level.

 

To get the government subsidies (i.e., cheap premiums) your income can't be more than 4 times the federal poverty line. Balta had a link a few pages back that will let you see what the cost would be.

[Iwritecode]

To get the government subsidies (i.e., cheap premiums) your income can't be more than 4 times the federal poverty line. Balta had a link a few pages back that will let you see what the cost would be.

 

I'm under the 400% of the poverty line but I can't find anything that gives me actual cost numbers. I found the official site that won't have anything until Oct 1.

[bmags]

this isn't exact to illinois mind you:

http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/healthpolicy/calculator/

 

But looks like you could be at about $350/mo for 2 person household.

[Jake]

Now how much do those percentages change if you start telling people they have to pay more to get it done?

 

Not sure, since they don't have to pay more

Edited September 26, 2013 by Jake

[southsider2k5]

Not sure, since they don't have to pay more

 

My point exactly.

[Soxfest]

About everything Obama said about Obamacare is a lie.............trainwreck 101.

[greg775]

What a country. Obama's big health care plan is a disaster. Obama can't get any support for anything, including this plan. He's been a big fat zero with the economy a total disaster.

Yet if he was eligible to run for president in three years again, he'd win big again.

I just don't get it anymore.

[Brian]

What a country. Obama's big health care plan is a disaster. Obama can't get any support for anything, including this plan. He's been a big fat zero with the economy a total disaster.

Yet if he was eligible to run for president in three years again, he'd win big again.

I just don't get it anymore.

 

What world do you live in?

[greg775]

What world do you live in?

 

Where do you disagree with what I wrote so I can respond?

[bigruss]

What a country. Obama's big health care plan is a disaster. Obama can't get any support for anything, including this plan. He's been a big fat zero with the economy a total disaster.

Yet if he was eligible to run for president in three years again, he'd win big again.

I just don't get it anymore.

I love your hard data on all of your points, makes it seem much more sane and logical.